Hearing in federal district court. Includes Judge James Robart's ruling from the bench granting a temporary restraining order against implementation of the travel ban executive order.
Note: a transcript of the hearing is included in the federal government's emergency motion for stay and motion for stay pending appeal in the Ninth Circuit.

Washington v. Trump District Court Documents After Feb. 10

Orders each party to file a memorandum discussing "whether the Ninth Circuit has construed the court’s temporary restraining order . . . as a preliminary injunction, such that additional briefing and possible evidence on a motion for preliminary injunction is no longer required in the district court, . . . or whether the parties should submit additional briefing and evidence in the district court concerning the issue of a preliminary injunction, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(3)."

"The Court ordered the parties to submit memoranda “discuss[ing] whether the Ninth Circuit has construed the court’s temporary restraining order as a preliminary injunction, such that additional briefing and possible evidence on a motion for a preliminary injunction is no longer required in the district court.” Minute Order, ECF 74 at 2. Washington and Minnesota (the States) respectfully submit that the answer is yes. The Ninth Circuit’s ruling treats this Court’s prior order as a preliminary injunction, rendering further preliminary injunction proceedings unnecessary and allowing the parties to proceed directly to discovery."

"Further proceedings in the Ninth Circuit will likely inform what additional proceedings on a preliminary injunction motion are necessary in district court. Accordingly, at this time, defendants believe the appropriate course is to postpone any further proceedings in the district court. Defendants respectfully request that they be permitted to file a status report with the Court no later than two business days after the Ninth Circuit decides whether to hear defendants’ stay motion en banc. The status report will update the Court on the Ninth Circuit’s proceedings and advise the Court of any update on defendants’ position regarding preliminary injunction proceedings in light of the Ninth Circuit’s actions."

"Based on its interpretation of the Ninth Circuit’s order, the court agrees that the
Ninth Circuit has construed the TRO as a preliminary injunction and that further briefing in this court on a motion for a preli
minary injunction is not warranted or appropriate while the present appeal is pending. However, the court does not see a basis for postponing other aspects of the litigation and agrees with the States that the case should otherwise proceed. "

"Due to regularly scheduled maintenance of the court’s electronic filing system (CM/ECF) on Sundays from 10:00 p.m. until midnight, appellees may file their opposition to the pending emergency motion no later than 1:00 a.m. P.S.T on Monday, February 6, 2017. Appellees’ reply remains due on Monday, February 6, 2017 at 3:00 p.m. P.S.T."

Granting leave to file amicus briefs, denying Golden's motion to intervene, etc.
"The following briefing schedule shall govern this appeal: the opening brief is due March 3, 2017; the
answering brief is due March 24, 2017; and the
optional reply brief is due March 29, 2017."

"A judge on this Court has made a sua sponte request that a vote be taken as to whether the order issued by the three judge motions panel on Febrruary 9, 2017, should be reconsidered en banc. . . . [T]he parties are instructed to file simultaneous briefs setting forth their respective positions on whether this matter should be reconsidered en banc." Briefs are due by 11:00 a.m., Pacific time, Feb. 16.

"The United States has represented to the Court that the President intends to issue a new Executive Order and has urged the Court to 'hold its consideration of the case until the President issues the new Order.' The United States has further represented that it will inform the Court of any new developments.

"En banc proceedings before this Court are stayed pending further Order of this Court."

"Pllaintiffs, two U.S. citizen parents, one lawful permanent resident and each of their children, who collectively represent immigrant visa petitioners and beneficiaries/applicants, respectfully request that this Court grant leave to
intervene in the instant appeal." These are the plaintiffs in Ali v. Trump, which was filed in the Western District of Washington Feb. 2, 2017.

Exhibit A is the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction in Ali v. Trump.

HIAS is refugee protection organization, with offices in twelve countries. It is one of the non-profit refugee resettlement agencies working through cooperative agreements with the United States Department of State and Department of Health and Human Services.

Professors Todd Aagaard, David E. Adelman, Robin Kundis Craig, Lincoln L. Davies, Noah Hall, F., Dave Owen, Zygmunt J. B. Plater, Alexander T. Skibine, Lisa Grow Sun, Joseph P. Tomain, and Amy J. Wildermuth "maintain a neutral position on the underlying merits of the case, and are not filing this brief in
support of either party. The Law Professors rather seek to offer guidance to the Court to help resolve the issue of state standing consistent with current law."

Includes the State of New York, together with the States California, Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Vermont, the Commonwealths of Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, and the District of Columbia.

U.S. Justice Foundation, Citizens United, Citizens United Foundation, English First Foundation, English First, Public Advocate of the United States, Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of America, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, U.S. Border Control Foundation, and Policy Analysis Center.
Amici support federal government's motion for stay.